The content work itself is largely exemplary — honest `ai_extracted` labels, direction on every Evidence record, sourceStatement/editorInference separation, exact locators, the unobtainable Juan-Tresserras 2002 chapter carried explicitly as unverified with retrieval logged (TIK-R004), the negative/countercase evidence imported at full strength, and the founder's YAPP funding conflict disclosed on the source, in TIK-E027, and in the overview. The disqualifying element is the edit to `src/domain/load.test.ts`: the stage-3 governance invariant previously asserted that *every* live case derives its standing from a full panel (`panel >= RATIFICATION_MIN_PANEL`), and the diff relaxes it so a case with zero check runs only has to be `unratified`. The PR body states the purpose plainly — this new featured case (13 featured claims plus article text, self-classified "needs-approval") ships now and "the cross-model panel for this case should be run post-merge." That is loosening the very gate that enforces §3.15's requirement that editorial judgment on featured content publish only on multi-model concurrence, in order to let this change through — check-weakening and reclassification to dodge the gate, which §3.15 forbids outright regardless of good intent. The mitigating fact that the case stays visibly labeled `unratified` does not save it: the constitution bars weakening the check, not merely mislabeling the result. (The omitted sources.yaml/research.yaml could hide further citation issues, but the visible test edit already decides the vote.)

The change appears carefully aligned with the constitution’s epistemic rules: claims are atomic and explicitly typed, evidence items are clearly separated from sources with directions (supports/undermines/qualifies/context), provenance is detailed with locators and honest uncertainty labels (e.g., Mas Castellar 2002 marked as not yet obtained), and interested networks and conflicts of interest (including the founder’s funding connection) are explicitly disclosed rather than hidden. The AI assessment overlay is explicitly labeled as an unreviewed AI draft and append-only, not altering canonical claims, which respects §3.14–3.15 and the Phase‑1 rules about AI-generated assessments. The ratification-governance test change tightens behavior (allowing unratified status for new cases but still enforcing full panels once any checks exist), which does not weaken checks under §3.15. However, some key files are omitted from the diff — notably `content/cases/immortality-key/sources.yaml`, `research.yaml`, and `docs/DECISIONS.md` — and these could, in principle, contain fabricated or improperly labeled citations, confidentiality breaches, or governance weakening that I cannot inspect. Because those unseen files are exactly where source records, research items, and project-level decisions live, I cannot be certain the overall PR complies, despite the visible portions looking constitutionally careful. Therefore I must vote "unsure" rather than assert compliance.

The diff modifies the fail-closed CI tests in `src/domain/load.test.ts` to bypass the `RATIFICATION_MIN_PANEL` assertion when a case has zero check runs. This explicitly weakens the pipeline's mechanical checks and allows featured content to be merged and published on one model's unilateral judgment without prior multi-model concurrence, directly violating the constraints in §3.15.

Three files are omitted from the diff, including sources.yaml (23 sources, every load-bearing citation) and research.yaml. Without those records I cannot check real-citations-only, honest verification labels, or exact locators (§3.8 / §3.15), which is the load-bearing compliance question for a new featured case. What is visible is largely careful: atomic rungs, explicit evidence direction, source-statement vs inference, independence/COI flags including the founder, ai_extracted and unverified labels, and an append-only assessment stamped draft/unreviewed. The load.test.ts change, however, relaxes “every live case has a full panel” so this case can ship with zero check runs and only an unratified standing, with the PR asking to run the cross-model panel post-merge — a possible §3.15 check-weakening I cannot treat as decisive without the omitted sources and the unseen DECISIONS.md line. Per the omitted-files rule I therefore cannot vote complies or violates.

The visible portion is largely exemplary: claims are atomic with explicit credibility-vs-diagnosticity separation, evidence records carry explicit direction and source-statement/editor-inference splits, the unobtainable 2002 primary is carried unverified with retrieval logged, the founder conflict of interest is disclosed in the ledger and overview, and the AI assessment overlay is append-only, stamped, and labeled humanReviewed: false — all consistent with §3.4–3.9, §3.14, and §4. The load.test.ts relaxation lets a zero-check case render as visibly 'unratified' while still requiring a full panel once any check run exists; that preserves the fail-closed default and honest labeling rather than presenting a draft as ratified, so I do not read it as check-weakening under §3.15, though it is the one judgment call. However, sources.yaml — the 416-line file containing the actual citation records, identifiers, and verification labels for all 23 sources — is omitted, and that is precisely where a fabricated citation, DOI, or locator (§3.8, §4, §3.15 fabrication ban) would live; evidence.yaml's 'verified via Crossref' claims cannot be cross-checked without it. research.yaml and the DECISIONS.md line are also unseen. Since the omitted files could hide the paradigm violation this panel exists to catch and nothing visible affirmatively decides the question, I cannot certify compliance from what was shown.